Social media companies should continue addressing violent online extremism and helping at-risk individuals without compromising free speech, a White House spokesperson said Friday. The comments came after a White House staff-led meeting between senior administration officials and company representatives (see 1908080051). The conversation focused on “how technology can be leveraged to identify potential threats, to provide help to individuals exhibiting potentially violent behavior, and to combat domestic terror,” the official said. “We urge internet and social media companies to continue their efforts in addressing violent extremism and helping individuals at risk, and to do so without compromising free speech.” Meanwhile, industry advocates blasted a summary of a draft executive order reported by CNN that apparently envisions directing the FCC and the FTC to address political censorship on social media. President Donald Trump in July directed his administration to explore all regulatory and legislative methods “to protect free speech” and constitutional rights (see 1907110066). The White House in May solicited evidence of anti-conservative bias by tech platforms (see 1905200036). The contemplated executive order “would transform the FCC and FTC from consumer protection agencies into regulators of online speech,” said TechFreedom President Berin Szoka. “Ironically, the same people screaming about ‘censorship’ by private companies would empower regulators to decide what kinds of online speech should and shouldn’t be taken down.” The White House shouldn’t hamstring efforts to curb online extremism “with politically motivated and likely unconstitutional executive orders about viewpoint neutrality,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Ed Black. The reported draft order is troubling on several levels, said Public Knowledge CEO Chris Lewis. He cited First Amendment violations, a disregard for the independence of federal agencies and an apparent attempt to unilaterally limit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “In the past we have had a bipartisan consensus from FTC and FCC commissioners that they are not interested in regulating speech or content on the internet,” he said. The president can’t unilaterally change Section 230, Center for Democracy & Technology Free Expression Project Director Emma Llanso said: “There is no legal requirement that social media companies apply any sort of ‘neutrality’ when they decide to remove content.”
Tech entrepreneur and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang criticized Amazon and the role artificial intelligence is going to play in workforce displacement during a Wednesday debate with former Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Commerce Committee member Kamala Harris of California and seven other candidates. The debate was otherwise almost completely devoid of tech and telecom policy mentions. A Tuesday debate included several policy focuses, with Senate Commerce member and 2020 Democratic candidate Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota saying rural broadband will be a top priority in her $1 trillion infrastructure proposal (see 1907310035). “Amazon is closing 30 percent of America's stores and malls and paying zero in taxes while doing it,” Yang said Wednesday. Amazon has been a target for Democratic candidates' ire during all four debates this year (see 1906270010 and 1906280053). Yang later warned AI is “going to displace hundreds of thousands of call center workers, truck drivers, the most common jobs in the United States.” Biden said he wouldn't seek to have the U.S. rejoin the original version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which in part deals with digital issues, but instead would seek to renegotiate. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from TPP in 2017 (see 1701240047). Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, invoked the 2018 false missile alert in Hawaii during her closing statement to highlight her objections to Trump's foreign policy priorities. Gabbard didn't mention the push for legislation, like the Authenticating Local Emergencies and Real Threats (Alert) Act, to address perceived weaknesses in the wireless emergency alert system (see 1904240033).
Citing violations against free speech and fair elections, Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii, sued Google Thursday for suspending her Google Ads account. The platform suspended the account immediately after the June 28 presidential primary debate, Gabbard said. She's seeking $50 million in damages. “Google’s arbitrary and capricious decision to suspend Tulsi’s Google Ads account during a critical moment in our campaign should be of concern to all political candidates and in fact all Americans,” wrote Gabbard, a proponent for breaking up big tech companies. Google deploys automated systems for flagging unusual activity on all ad accounts to prevent fraud and other harmful behavior, a company spokesperson emailed. With Gabbard, “our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” the spokesperson said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said all candidates for the Democrats' 2020 presidential nomination should “discuss how they will undo” the “blunder” of FCC rescission of 2015 net neutrality rules. A bid by congressional Democrats to kill the rescission is stalled. Senate Republicans last month blocked a push by Democrats to pass the Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill by unanimous consent (see 1906110038). HR-1644/S-682, which the House passed in April, would reverse the order rescinding the rules and restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1904100062). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill is dead on arrival in the chamber (see 1904090045). Khanna complained Thursday that “ZERO questions” about net neutrality were asked during the first set of Democratic debates in late June (see 1906270010 and 1906280053). Another set of debates is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. Twenty-one of the 25 current Democratic hopefuls declared support for restoring in some form the rules, though most haven't provided much detail. Four candidates haven't taken a position -- former Vice President Joe Biden, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam and businessman Tom Steyer. The four candidates' campaigns didn't comment.
One U.S. agency is at odds with the FTC having won its case against Qualcomm over the company's alleged mobile chip monopoly. "The district court’s ruling threatens competition, innovation, and national security," said the government's "statement of interest" on the chipmaker's motion for partial stay of injunction pending appeal. "Its liability determination misapplied Supreme Court precedent, and its remedy is unprecedented. Immediate implementation of the remedy could put our nation’s security at risk, potentially undermining U.S. leadership in 5G technology and standard-setting." Qualcomm likely would succeed on the merits of the appeal, said the filing (in Pacer). The case began at the end of the Obama administration over dissent of the then-sole Republican commissioner. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose had issued a permanent injunction over some of the company's IP licensing practices (see 1905220035), which the defendant appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That's where the government made its new request, and where also this week, stakeholders including Ericsson backed (in Pacer) Qualcomm's partial stay request pending appeal. An FTC spokesperson declined to "comment on DOJ’s views on the Qualcomm case."
Facebook won’t offer its digital currency Libra until the company receives the “appropriate approvals” and all regulatory concerns are “fully addressed,” Calibra Head David Marcus is expected to tell the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday (see 1907050025). He anticipates the most “careful pre-launch oversight by regulators and central banks in FinTech’s history,” according to his prepared remarks. Facebook doesn’t expect Calibra, the subsidiary leading the project, to “make money at the outset.” The Libra Association, a 28-company group managing the project, doesn’t plan to compete with “any sovereign currencies,” he wrote. House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters, D-Calif., voiced concern about Libra competing with the dollar. The association “will work with the Federal Reserve and other central banks to make sure Libra does not compete with sovereign currencies or interfere with monetary policy,” Marcus said. If the U.S. doesn’t lead the digital currency market, foreign entities with far different values could take control, he wrote. The Treasury Department has “very serious concerns” about digital currencies like Libra being misused by money launderers and terrorism financiers, Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday, calling it a “national security issue.” Facebook will be subject to the same safeguard requirements as traditional financial institutions, he added. The platform's “dismal track record on data privacy makes its proposal to launch Libra a dangerous liability at home and abroad,” the Open Markets Institute said Monday. Congress and the Federal Reserve should block non-sovereign currencies like Libra and consider offering its own digital currency, the group said. The risks of Libra are “too great to allow the plan to proceed,” Public Citizen President Robert Weissman is expected to tell the committee. Libra raises questions that regulators aren’t prepared to address about national sovereignty, corporate power, consumer protection, competition policy, monetary policy and privacy, Public Citizen wrote.
Facebook’s planned cryptocurrency Libra will have “little standing or dependability,” President Donald Trump tweeted Thursday (see 1907050025). Social media companies wanting to become banks must seek a new banking charter and subject themselves to all banking regulations, Trump said. “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air,” he said. Trump raised concern about digital currencies facilitating “unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.” The company didn’t comment.
The White House’s coming summit on Silicon Valley’s alleged anti-conservative bias (see 1906260070) seems like an attempt to intimidate companies into bending to the administration’s will, said Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Ed Black Wednesday. Social media sites shouldn’t be forced to be neutral on hate or religious intolerance, he said: “If those airing grievances at this week’s meeting are unsatisfied with one company’s policy against objectionable content, there are plenty of competitors from which to choose.”
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson were among 41 business leaders at a Monday dinner that President Donald Trump held at the White House for Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and his delegation, the White House press pool said. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow also attended.
President Donald Trump can't block Twitter users from his official account, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, upholding U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued Trump for blocking users from @realDonaldTrump after they criticized him (see 1806050068). The White House claimed the account was a personal one. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, saying the account and “webpage associated with it bear all the trappings of an official, state-run account.” The opinion, by Judge Barrington Parker on behalf of himself, Christopher Droney and Peter Hall, called the account “one of White House’s main vehicles for conducting official business.” The First Amendment “does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” it said. The White House referred us to DOJ, which said it's exploring possible next steps. “As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal twitter account does not violate the First Amendment,” said a spokesperson.